Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
J. S. SEHRAWAT v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee by the designated Disciplinary Authority, rejecting the challenge based on authority competence and applying res judicata to bar re-litigation.
M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Jogighopa Act are not governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, and in absence of prescribed limitation, appeals must be filed within reasonable time, allowing the delayed appeal filed by the appellant.
Raptakos Breet & Company Ltd. v. Gajanan M. Sonawane
The Bombay High Court modified orders awarding back wages to a dismissed employee, directing lump sum compensation instead, affirming limited interference with Labour Court findings under Article 227.
National Iranian Tanker Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding a demurrage claim time-barred, ruling that correspondence on undisputed invoices did not reset the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Lalit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that unauthorized absence charges must be set aside if leave was regularized, remanding the case for reconsideration of punishment for the remaining period of absence.
M/S. AJAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SATYANARAYAN SOMANI
The Supreme Court held that renewal of a public lease is discretionary and must be exercised in public interest with transparency, setting aside a flawed lease renewal and conversion to freehold by UDA in favor of a private developer.
M/s. Satyam Construction v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty paid on a Development Agreement is refundable under the extended limitation period of the Proviso to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, treating such agreements on par with conveyances, and awarded interest on the refund.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Maharukh Murad Oomrigar & Ors
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking transfer of a civil suit challenging a nomination to be tried along with a testamentary suit, holding that the suits involve distinct issues and parties and transfer is not justified under Section 24 CPC.
National Highway Authority of India v. Unitech -NCC (JV)
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award in favor of Unitech, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited to rare grounds such as perversity or patent illegality, which were not made out in this case.
XTRAA CLEANCITIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the Development Commissioner's jurisdiction to impose penalties under the Foreign Trade Act for false GSP certification by an SEZ unit, dismissing the petition challenging the penalty order.
ABB India Ltd v. The Commissioner Trade Taxes & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that interest on tax refund must be calculated from the date of the refund claim, not from the dismissal of the tax authority's appeal, and directed payment of the differential interest to ABB India Limited.
GARG ACRYCLICS LTD v. UOI
The Delhi High Court held that loans sanctioned during the TUFS blackout period (30 June 2010 to 27 April 2011) are not eligible for scheme benefits, rejecting claims based on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
Smt Sulekha Rani v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that discharge of an army personnel on medical grounds without an Invalidation Medical Board is illegal and directed grant of family pension treating service as continuing until death.
Sanjay Prakash Mane v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness evidence but upheld their convictions for attempt to murder, granting benefit of doubt on the more serious offence.
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. HIRA LAL DUGGAL
The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant on the ground that the charge sheet was issued beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under the CCS (Pension) Rules.
Vijay Madhavrao Budhale v. Bhagoji Ganu Kamble
The Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance contingent on government permission is within limitation from refusal after notice, non-joinder of necessary co-owner parties is fatal, possession under Section 53-A requires actual possession per agreement, and directed refund of earnest money with interest while denying specific performance.
Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt Ltd v. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld a partial decree for payment based on a clear admission in an email under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, rejecting defendants' claims of inadmissibility and affirming the Amendment Agreement as governing payment obligations.
Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt Ltd v. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed partial judgment on admission for ₹4.19 crore based on an email admission, holding that the Amendment Agreement governs payments and that the email was admissible and constituted clear liability admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is invalid without failure to truly and fully disclose material facts, quashing the reassessment notice issued to Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd.
Sailappan Sodali Muthu v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 314 notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for failure to specify the statutory contravention, holding such omission renders the notice without jurisdiction.